I've found a debugger particularly useful when trying to understand details about other people's code, when changing the source code is not necessarily an option. They can quickly give me answer to how the call stack looks like when a function is called, and let me inspect variables in different frames of the stack.
I've encountered a code written in the 12factor style of using environment variables for configuration, and in that particular case there was no validation nor documentation of the configuration options. Is this typical?
For onboarding new members, I would have thought it preferable to have a JSON configuration, where both documentation and validation of configuration options are provided by a JSON Schema file.
Check the WCAG success criteria that your jurisdiction requires. One less obvious, and commonly required, criteria (WCAG 2.4.1[1]) is that the site has some mechanism by which a screen reader user can jump from the beginning of the document to the main content, without having to browse through the preceding navigational links and similar.
I personally don't see having the version in the package address particularly more nasty than specifying it in the project file, as in Maven, which I have been dealing with lately. One problem I imagine is that when migrating to a new version of a library, the address has to be updated in each file the library is used in, with potentially catastrophic consequences if any one file is forgotten. A grep seems wise in that case.
Would you argue that there are more robust solutions in the Haskell ecosystem? What scheme do you prefer?
Your thoughts match up with Anders Breivik living in a part of Oslo, a city with a large portion of early-generation immigrants from non-western areas, which was predominantly white.
I would not say that I am particularly experienced, but I will tell my point of view from a not particularly sophisticated programmer. I am interested in seeing what objections others may have to what I write.
Compared to other popular programming languages aimed at web programming, such as Python, Ruby and PHP, Go provides more type safety. Comparable to Java's but for less code.
Go's runtime and development tools are very lightweight, which is important to me as I use multiple, often dated computers with limited memory.
It is very easy to learn, a low investment. This means that it is conceivable for a student previously only exposed to Java to get on board on your software project on short-time notice.
Here in Norway newspapers more or less survive, although perhaps not with the younger generations. They are generally the best source if you want to follow up on local events.
How well does deploying Haskell web applications to a low-memory VPS work? My experience with the Play framework tells me that Scala is out of the question. Presumably using Haskell involves cross-compilation, considering the memory usage of GHC compilation.
Surely expressing personal issues with Lisp's syntax is valid, especially if a possible solution is offered. If you see at least some of the larger codebases written in Lisp, it is natural to be overwhelmed by the level of indentation, which will cause the code to wrap under many editor setups.
I do not believe any large company have economic interest in developing such technologies, in part because they can subvert current business models that are built on centralized identity authorities and communications monitoring, so I rely on independent efforts to see variants of these technologies that can reasonably be adopted by the people I interact with.